Columnist Leonard Pitts' arguments against Hobby Lobby are so convoluted as to be laughable. He said Hobby Lobby can rightly have no interest in contraceptive care but should not get to "make that decision for everybody else."

He says Hobby Lobby is imposing its values on thousands of workers and points out that a woman's contraceptive choices are her own. All true but quite beside the point.

Women can make their own contraceptive choices, have their own values and follow their own decisions, all without forcing employees to provide contraceptives via health insurance, which is supposed to be about health care.

Stopping the body from functioning as designed is not "health care," but that's another topic.

Regarding the letter to the editor "Hobby Lobby" (Page B9, Monday), which attacks Leonard Pitts' column on Hobby Lobby, references "free" birth control under the Affordable Care Act and smugly observes that "there are no free lunches in this world" - really?

An old Southern white guy got his first free lunch the day he appeared at his segregated grade school, which was better-funded than the black school down the road.

He got another free lunch the first time he applied for a job, because women and racial minorities could be excluded from competing with him, and then he got another free lunch every day when he earned more than a woman would for doing the same work, even if she did it better.

If he was ever pulled over in a traffic stop, the southern white guy likely got yet another free lunch: better treatment than a black guy stopped for the same reason.

Mr. No-Free-Lunch is eligible for Medicare now, so if he wants Viagra, Cialis or a penis pump, that's just as much a "free lunch" as birth control under the ACA, and unlike contraception for young women, it's purely recreational for old men. We women on Medicare don't need birth control, but we have to subsidize the price of recreational sex for old codgers, despite nature's valiant efforts to put a stop to it.